A Nevada-based restaurant attempted to stop a New York-based deli from using a potentially similar mark yet neither party has or seemingly intends to do business in the other’s state.

The Court concludes that restaurants and deli are sufficiently different that a consumer can tell the difference (we do not often see courts giving consumers such props for their intelligence).

The Court grants concurrent use.

The Court notes that this case only came about because defendant sent plaintiff an overly aggressive cease and desist letter (thus overlawyering rears its ugly head and loses the client some of its rights).

“Interesting?” More like, you know — stupid! Not the decision, mind you, though it does essentially says “stupid” all over it in reference to the litigation ever having to happen. But yes, the fact that it happened, and that someone had to pay for it to happen — that’s just stupid.

Some interesting, non-stupid things did happen though, such as this bit:

[T]here are other differences that separate the marks. HAG and the Deli pitch for vastly different customers. HAG proudly represents (even in its court papers) that its food is unhealthful. It even draws attention to the fact of a customer who had a heart attack while on the premises. Its food is served by scantily clad waitresses dressed like nurses, as part of its overall “medical”—perhaps better cast as “paramedic”—theme. The [Second Avenue] Deli, by contrast, is a kosher deli which serves kosher food in the style of a traditional Manhattan deli. Its offerings, other than the Instant Heart Attack Sandwich, do not trumpet their unhealthfulness; and its marketing does not remotely resemble that of HAG’s. Further, being a kosher deli, the Deli could not serve sandwiches containing both meat and cheese. This factor thus strongly favors a finding of no confusion. . . .

Although the record does not permit the Court to assess the sophistication of the patrons of the Deli and HAG, it is safe to say that even an unsophisticated customer could readily differentiate between a Manhattan kosher deli and its latke-based sandwich and a Las Vegas “medically themed” restaurant that features gluttonous cheeseburgers. Such a customer also presumably can differentiate between a restaurant bearing a “heart attack” name and a sandwich with a similar name.

What happened to “bridging the gap“? Is that a stupid question? Not at all: The court addresses it and says the gap between Las Vegas and New York is, in this case, not presently likely to be bridged. In short, these sandwiches don’t compete with each other.

I actually do find somewhat surprising the court’s conclusion that factors such as the differences between the content of the sandwiches and the environments in which they’re served tend toward a finding of no LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION. They are, after all, both sandwiches. In many respects there is a substantial likelihood of excessively stupid thought about this question. But the judge does discuss the relevant factors, which include concurrent use and geographic scope questions, extensively.

In fact, Judge Englemayer’s opinion is actually a very good guide to non-stupid issues involving priority of use and the rights that come with trademark registration, for it arose in the context of a PTO Office Action denying the Deli’s application to register Second Avenue Deli’s TRIPLE BYPASS SANDWICH because it was likely to be confused with HAG’s TRIPLE BYPASS BURGER mark. Hilarity — and no small amount of stupidity — ensued, as the court explains in great detail.

Was it such a stupid lawsuit, just because it was over sandwiches (or burgers, which are really sandwiches, after all)? The fact is, most trademark cases sound “stupid” to a lot of judges who are more impressed to have “their time” consumed by respectable financial disputes or crime and who do not enjoy writing decisions involving often silly-sounding brand names or animal logos or names of meals — and too often, their written opinions show it.

Turns out this is not such a stupid case at all, because a judge in the Southern District of New York, while not reluctant to chastise counsel over litigation-posturing-stupidity gone out of control, gave the time of day to some bona fide trademark issues arising out of a stupid food fight. Stupid is, in fact, as stupid does — and vice-versa.

6 Responses to “Stupid law?: Sandwich edition”

Isnâ€™t the real problem in this sandwich case that, based on some restaurateurâ€™s admitted creativity in coming up with a cute name for a massive hamburger, and the use of that name in a couple of restaurants in the Southwest, plus a showing that the use of that cute name was in interstate commerce (which doesn’t mean very much!), he then manages to get a NATIONWIDE presumptive monopoly on use of a mark that, at the time, had no secondary meaning in most parts of the country? Here, it turns out that somebody else across the country had a very similar inspiration (but for a sandwich based on latke and cold cuts, not a burger), and so he gets off in part.

[…] factors, the court held that the New York deli can continue using its name. Â Tim Buker and Ron Coleman offer some nice analysis of this case at their blogs. Like this:LikeBe the first to like […]

The question of whether consumers are likely to be confused is the signal inquiry that determines if a trademark infringement claim is valid. This blog is about trademark law, copyright law, free speech (mostly as it relates to the Internet) and legal issues related to blogging.

It's easy it is to game almost any ranking system, not that I've tried to. As such. These are just what they are.

DISCLAIMER

THIS BLOG IS ONLY A BLOG, NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS IN PART AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY ME, RONALD D. COLEMAN, BUT I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT MY CLIENT. JUST WALK BESIDE ME AND BE MY FRIEND.

*The term maven is used to mean "wise guy" here and is not meant to suggest that I am certified or otherwise authorized under bar rules to claim "expertise" in any field of legal practice. But try me.